{Dоwnlоаd/Rеаd PDF Bооk} Linux Phrasebook 1St Edition
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Report on the 2020 FOSS Contributor Survey
Report on the 2020 FOSS Contributor Survey The Linux Foundation & The Laboratory for Innovation Science at Harvard Frank Nagle Harvard Business School David A. Wheeler The Linux Foundation Hila Lifshitz-Assaf New York University Haylee Ham Jennifer L. Hoffman Laboratory for Innovation Science at Harvard Acknowledgments This report and the research behind it would not have been possible without the leadership of the Core Infrastructure Initiative’s Advisory Committee, composed of Josh Corman, Steve Lipner, Audris Mockus, Henning Piezunka, and Sam Ransbotham. Frank Nagle would also like to thank his fellow co-directors of the Core Infrastructure Initiative, Jim Zemlin at the Linux Foundation and Karim Lakhani at the Laboratory for Innovation Science at Harvard, for their counsel and direction throughout this project. Gratitude and thanks to Michael Dolan and Kate Stewart at the Linux Foundation for their ongoing commitment to this undertaking. Thank you to James Dana for laying the initial groundwork for this survey. Finally — and perhaps, most importantly — thank you to all the individuals who contribute to FOSS projects. Without their tireless efforts, our core digital infrastructure and the feats enabled by it would not be sustainable. REVISED: This report has been updated since its original release on 8 December 2020. This second version, released on 10 December 2020, corrects errors found in the original text and graphics. Contents Executive Summary 4 Introduction 7 Methodology 9 Overview of Findings 10 Demographics 10 Figure 1: Gender -
Kernel Validation with Kselftest Shuah Khan, Kernel Maintainer and Fellow, the Linux Foundation
Kernel Validation With Kselftest Shuah Khan, Kernel Maintainer and Fellow, The Linux Foundation • Why do we test? • Kinds of testing/tests ... – Unit, developer, regression, integration • Linux kernel testing philosophy – Developer and community driven testing – Reliance on community and users • Linux kernel release cycle – Time based - not feature based – Continuous and parallel development/testing model • Linux kernel testing and validation – Writing tests • Kernel test frameworks - Kselftest & KUnit – Developer testing • Kselftest, KUnit and others. – Regression testing • Kselftest, KUnit and others. • Linux kernel testing and validation – Continuous Integration testing • Static analysis tools (sparse, smatch, coccicheck etc.) • Dynamic analysis tools (fuzzers, syzbot etc.) • Where does this all happen? – Developer test systems – Continuous Integration Rings • Kernel CI Dashboard — Home • 0-Day - Boot and Performance issues • 0-Day - Build issues • Linaro QA • Buildbot • Hulk Robot • What is tested? – Kernel repositories: • linux mainline • linux-next • developer git repositories – Active kernel releases • Basic testing – Boot and usage test – Run basic sanity tests • Basic sanity tests – Does networking (wifi/wired) work correctly? – Does ssh work? – rsync a large file(s) from another system – Download files: wget, ftp, git clone etc. – Play audio/video • Examine kernel logs – Look for new critical and error messages – Check for new warning messages – Check for panic traces • Kernel selftest (Kselftest) – Regression test suite • Kernel -
Christopher Fabritius
Cand. Merc. Management of Innovation and Business Development Innovation and Organizational Economics Master’s Thesis Christopher Fabritius Strategic dimensions for open source competition - Appropriating value in a weak appropriablity regime Pages: 72 Standard pages: 60.21 Christopher Fabritius Supervisor: Jens Frøslev Institute: INO Copenhagen Business School, December 2009 Abstract Purpose Firstly, to place open source business models in a theoretical framework. Secondly, to identify generic complementary assets that are essential for the ability of open source firms to compete. Lastly, to relate the individual assets to the properties of open source licensing and software business models. Design/methodology/approach An empirical approach that questions assumptions of existing theory. This is achieved through an examination of the mechanisms and unique characteristics of open source software, and how these influence business models with special regards to complementary assets. Using the findings from “Profiting from Technological Innovation” by David Teece and other key theorists to outline the interaction between complementary assets and available product markets. Finally, empirical data is used to identify and closely examine core complementary assets in weak appropriability regimes. Findings Copyright legislation is used to ensure innovation through forcing openness of the technology in contrast to the traditional opposite approach. Teece can be used to place open source business models in a familiar framework, defining open source as a weak appropriability regime. Though subject to a peculiar set of rules regarding technology and innovation, open source business is fundamentally “business as usual” when approached from a strategic perspective. It is the constellation of complementary assets in combination with select product markets that enables the unique competitive position for players and defines business models. -
Titans and Trolls of the Open Source Arena
Titans and Trolls Enter the Open-Source Arena * by DEBRA BRUBAKER BURNS I. Introduction .................................................................................... 34 II. Legal Theories for Open Source Software License Enforcement ................................................................................... 38 A. OSS Licensing .......................................................................... 38 B. Legal Theories and Remedies for OSS Claims .................... 40 1. Legal Protections for OSS under Copyright and Contract Law ..................................................................... 40 Stronger Protections for OSS License under Copyright Law ................................................................... 40 2. Copyright-Ownership Challenges in OSS ....................... 42 3. Potential Legal Minefields for OSS under Patent Law ...................................................................................... 45 4. Added Legal Protection for OSS under Trademark Law ...................................................................................... 46 5. ITC 337 Action as Uncommon Legal Protection for OSS ..................................................................................... 49 III. Enforcement Within the OSS Community .................................. 49 A. Software Freedom Law Center Enforces OSS Licenses .... 50 B. Federal Circuit Finds OSS License Enforceable Under Copyright Law ......................................................................... 53 C. Commercial OSS -
Please Don't Go
Please Don’t Go - Increasing Women’s Participation in Open Source Software Bianca Trinkenreich Northern of Arizona University Flagstaff, AZ, USA [email protected] Abstract—Women represent less than 24% of the software the development of the community with norms and values development industry and suffer from various types of prejudice consistent with their own vision [12], focusing on the first and biases. In Open Source Software projects, despite a variety social experiences through programs such as mentorships [13], of efforts to increase diversity and multi-gendered participation, women are even more underrepresented (less than 10%). My and fixing the gender-bias issues in non-inclusive tools and research focuses on answering the question: How can OSS infrastructure [14]. Some strategies that are discouraged by communities increase women’s participation in OSS projects? the literature include setting quotas for women. Just increasing I will identify the different OSS career pathways, and develop the proportion of women can lead to questioning stereotypes a holistic view of women’s motivations to join or leave OSS, and decisions to simply re-classify types of work that are cur- along with their definitions of success. Based on this empirical investigation, I will work together with the Linux Foundation rently packaged in masculine-feminine stereotyped specialties. to design attraction and retention strategies focused on women. Another discouraged strategy is related to coding schools that Before and after implementing the strategies, I will conduct train women in specialties where they are already represented. empirical studies to evaluate the state of the practice and These schools might perpetuate the disadvantage of women understand the implications of the strategies. -
Safeguarding the Future of Linux Through Standards
Safeguarding the Future of Linux Through Standards “ Through the defi nition and testing of operating system interfaces, the LSB creates a stable platform that benefi ts Safeguarding Key Facts the Future of bo th developers and users.” - Linus Torvalds Linux Through Standards • The FSG is a non-profi t organization devoted to the ongoing success of Linux The Free Standards Group is an independent nonprofi t organization dedicated to accelerating the use and acceptance of free and open source • Growing membership includes all leading Linux vendors software by developing and promoting standards. Supported by leaders and many infl uential non-profi ts in the IT industry as well as the open source development community, the in the Linux community Free Standards Group fulfi lls a critical need to have common behavioral • Workgroups cover key specifi cations, tools and ABIs across Linux platforms. The Linux Standard Base Linux standards issues such as a binary standard and offers an answer to the most pressing issue facing Linux today: fragmentation. internationalization • Board members include an A well supported standard for Linux is the neccesary component to Linux’s assortment of Linux experts continued success. Without a commonly adopted standard, Linux will fragment, and senior representatives of the Linux community thus proving costly for ISVs to port their applications to the operating system and making it diffi cult for end users and Linux vendors alike. By adopting the • Headquartered in San Francisco Linux Standard Base, the Linux community provides this crucial portability so that applications can be used on more than one distribution of Linux with little or no change. -
History of Linux from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
History of Linux From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The history of Linux began in 1991 with the commencement of a personal project by Finnish student Linus Torvalds to create a new free operating system kernel. Since then, the resulting Linux kernel has been marked by constant growth throughout its history. Since the initial release of its source code in 1991, it has grown from a small number of C files under a license prohibiting commercial distribution to the 4.2.3 version in 2015 with more than 18 million lines of source code under the GNU General Public License v2.[1](p7)[2][3] Contents 1 Events leading to creation 2 The creation of Linux 3 Naming 4 Linux under the GNU GPL 5 GNU/Linux naming controversy 6 Official mascot 7 New development 7.1 Community 7.2 Open Source Development Lab and Linux Foundation 7.3 Companies 7.4 Desktop environments 8 "Linux is obsolete" 9 Competition from Microsoft 10 SCO 11 Trademark rights 12 Chronology 13 See also 14 References 15 External links Events leading to creation After AT&T had dropped out of the Multics project, the Unix operating system was conceived and implemented by Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie (both of AT&T Bell Laboratories) in 1969 and first released in 1970. Later they rewrote it in a new programming language, C, to make it portable. The availability and portability of Unix caused it to be widely adopted, copied and modified by academic institutions and businesses. In 1977, the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) was developed by the Computer Systems Research Group (CSRG) from UC Berkeley, based on the 6th edition of Unix from AT&T. -
Linux Foundation Training & Certification
Linux Foundation Training & Certification April 2020 Agenda 1. The Linux Foundation (TLF or The LF) 2. Demand for Talent 3. Training and Certification 4. Why Certify with LFCS? Close with Q&A Intro to the Linux Foundation Linux Foundation History ˃ The Linux Foundation was started in 2000 under the Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) and became the organization it is today when OSDL merged with the Free Standards Group (FSG) in 2007. ˃ The Linux Foundation is home to the largest open source projects in the world and sponsors the work of Linux creator Linus Torvalds. ˃ The Linux Foundation is supported by leading technology firms and developers from around the world. ˃ The Linux Foundation provides infrastructure, legal management, events, training and certification, for open source projects in order grow and sustain them. 4 The Linux Foundation is creating the greatest shared technology investment in history by enabling open source collaboration across companies, developers, and users. We are the organization of choice to build ecosystems that accelerate open technology development and commercial adoption. Neutral home for the world's most important projects We host over 200 of the most critical open source projects accelerating open technology and commercial adoption. Our projects harness the power of open source development to fuel innovation at unmatched speed and scale. www.linuxfoundation.org/projects/ Linux has become the most important software in the world 99% 82% 2nd 90% 90% 62% #1 Supercomputer Smartphone To Windows Mainframe -
Android – the First Truly Open and Complete Platform for Mobile Devices
Android – the first truly open and complete platform for mobile devices KNOW-HOW # 50 Android is a new open-source platform for mobile phones. With its solid Linux foundation, a very business-friendly open-source license and an easy-to-use Java programming model, it provides a perfect basis for mobile applications – and beyond. As part of the Open Handset Alliance that guides Android‘s evolution, Noser Engineering AG contributed functionality to the core platform. «Android is the first truly open and comprehensive platform for mobile devices. It includes an operating system, user-interface and applications – all of the software to run a mobile phone, but without the proprietary obstacles that have hindered mobile innovation. We have developed Android in cooperation with the Open Handset Alliance, which consists of more than 30 technology and mobile leaders including Motorola, Qualcomm, HTC and T-Mobile. Through deep partnerships with carriers, device manufacturers, developers, and others, we hope to enable an open ecosystem for the mobile world by creating a standard, open mobile software platform. We think the result will ultimately be a better and faster pace for innovation that will give mobile customers unforeseen applications and capabilities.» Andy Rubin, Director of Mobile Platforms at Google, official Google Blog entry 11/5/2007 we know how The project As part of the Open Handset Alliance and on behalf of Google, Noser Engineering AG contributed the larger part of the so-called «Android core libraries». These are basically a set of libraries that provide most of the functionality typically found in desktop implementations of the Java programming language, but adapted to and optimized for a mobile device. -
Android (Operating System) 10.1 Introduction: Android Is a Mobile
Page 1 of 9 Android (operating system) 10.1 Introduction: Android is a mobile operating system (OS) based on the Linux kernel and currently developed by Google. With a user interface based on direct manipulation, Android is designed primarily for touchscreen mobile devices such as smartphones and tablet computers, with specialized user interfaces for televisions (Android TV), cars (Android Auto), and wrist watches (Android Wear). The OS uses touch inputs that loosely correspond to real-world actions, like swiping, tapping, pinching, and reverse pinching to manipulate on-screen objects, and a virtual keyboard. Despite being primarily designed for touchscreen input, it also has been used in game consoles, digital cameras, and other electronics. Android is the most popular mobile OS. As of 2013, Android devices sell more than Windows, iOS, and Mac OS devices combined,[14][15][16][17] with sales in 2012, 2013 and 2014[18] close to the installed base of all PCs.[19] As of July 2013 the Google Play store has had over 1 million Android apps published, and over 50 billion apps downloaded.[20] A developer survey conducted in April–May 2013 found that 71% of mobile developers develop for Android.[21] At Google I/O 2014, the company revealed that there were over 1 billion active monthly Android users (that have been active for 30 days), up from 538 million in June 2013.[22] Android's source code is released by Google under open source licenses, although most Android devices ultimately ship with a combination of open source and proprietary software.[3] -
IBM Zpdt Guide and Reference System Z Personal Development Tool
Front cover IBM zPDT Guide and Reference System z Personal Development Tool IBM System z Personal Development Tool Full IBM z/OS usage Linux base Bill Ogden ibm.com/redbooks International Technical Support Organization IBM zPDT Reference and Guide: System z Personal Development Tool April 2015 SG24-8205-01 Note: Before using this information and the product it supports, read the information in “Notices” on page xi. Second Edition (April 2015) This edition applies to Version 1, Release 6, of the IBM System z Personal Development Tool (zPDT). © Copyright International Business Machines Corporation 2014, 2015. All rights reserved. Note to U.S. Government Users Restricted Rights -- Use, duplication or disclosure restricted by GSA ADP Schedule Contract with IBM Corp. Contents Notices . xi Trademarks . xii Preface . xiii Authors. xiii Now you can become a published author, too! . xiv Comments welcome. xiv Stay connected to IBM Redbooks . xiv Chapter 1. Introduction. 1 1.1 Quick start (GA5 or GA6) . 3 Chapter 2. Function, releases, content . 5 2.1 System z characteristics . 6 2.2 Hardware token. 7 2.2.1 Emulated I/O . 8 2.2.2 Concurrent PC workloads . 10 2.3 Operational overview . 10 2.3.1 Linux userids. 10 2.3.2 zPDT instances. 11 2.3.3 zPDT console . 12 2.3.4 Performance . 12 2.4 Base configurations. 14 2.4.1 Hardware and software levels. 14 2.5 Using older System z architectures. 16 2.6 zPDT Components . 17 2.6.1 zPDT elements . 17 2.6.2 Memory . 18 2.6.3 Disk space . 19 2.6.4 LAN adapters . -
How NOT to Do Research on an Open Source Community
How NOT to do research on an open source community... Greg Kroah-Hartman David A. Wheeler May 2021 Timeline (1 of 4) ● 2020 Aug 9..21: “Hypocrite Commits” patches sent from UMN researchers ○ Attempted to introduce vulnerabilities to see if they would be detected ○ Sent to kernel developers from false identities; without consent, notice, or ethics review ● 2020 Nov: Draft “Hypocrite Commits” paper is published ● 2020 Nov 22: Sarah Jamie Lewis calls attention to paper’s questionable ethics ● 2020 Dec 1: Lewis & others send letter to IEEE S&P, questioning ethics ● 2020 Dec [day unknown]: UMN IRB appears to give after-the-fact exemption to research on the basis that it believes the research is not human research ● 2020 Dec 15: UMN issues clarification ● 2021 Apr 6: Poor quality patches sent by UMN after ~7 months of silence ○ Raises spectre of continued attacks ● 2021 Apr 20: Greg K-H asks submitters to stop sending poor quality patches under the guise of “research on maintainers” ○ Researcher claimed new set of patches was not part of previous research ○ Greg replies, umn.edu submissions should be rejected until all figured out UMN = University of Minnesota, IEEE = Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, S&P = Security & Privacy Source: TAB report 2 Timeline (2 of 4) ● 2021 Apr 21: Greg K-H requests review @umn.edu reverts, TAB begins review ● 2021 Apr 23: Linux Foundation sends letter to UMN requesting: ○ Id all proposals of known-vulnerable code from any U of MN experiment ○ Withdraw, from formal publication, research where subjects didn’t give prior consent ○ Ensure all future U of MN experiments on people first have review and approval ○ Ensure all future reviews of proposed experiments on people will normally ensure the consent of those being experimented on ● 2021 Apr 24: UMN publishes “An open letter to the Linux community” ● 2021 Apr 26: UMN researchers retract "Hypocrite Commits" paper from formal publication ● 2021 Apr 27: UMN published details on commits & replies to LF ○ Paper withdrawn.